Pro-abortion group violence

BMS

Well-known member
You are saying that morality has "a nature", an existence independent of the minds contemplating it. Where is this morality found? How do we observe, measure or calibrate it? How do you know that your personal view of it is the "correct" one, while other people are mistaken?

For me, morality is an emergent property of the mind. It cannot be independent, nor can it be objective. People disagree about some moral issues, whilst most agree about others. Just as most people agree that Mozart wrote better music than Jethro Tull, but there is hot dispute between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

I cannot see any mechanism for an objective morality, even in one generated by a God. How can the Bible be used to judge the morality of Internet porn, for example? The best you can get from the Bible, or any other religious source, is a broad set of principles. To my mind, we get that from our upbringing and from our genetic inheritance. The notion of a single moral standard applying to all, is just not what we see.

I too would prefer a serious discussion.
You start the post still confused and you build on iy
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I'd suggest morals have a "nature" that exist apart from my contemplating them. As I have said over and over that generally physically and mentally healthy people do not want to be killed, raped, lied to or about, or stolen from etc etc. I don't ever remember deciding that going forward I really don't want to be killed. Part of the immoral "nature" of killing another human being is taking from that person something you have no right to and take from them without their permission. That's the "nature" of killing. That isn't changed because one side of the equation believes they have a justifiable reason to do it. Hitler still took from Jews what wasn't his and he had no permission from them to take it, no matter what he though of them. If that determines morals then we are screwed. I hope you see a problem with that.
OK, that is much clearer. I understand your point of view now. My answer is that l agree with you. I just don't think that this makes morality objective. What you described here is the aspect of morality that I would ascribe to our common human heritage. We are a social species and as such we have developed certain traits which help us cooperate with one another, at least within our own social group. As in all other types of trait, there are variations. Some people are very much more into cooperating with others than average, dome much less so. Some are much more jealous of their personal property, others much more ready to kill or injure other people. As such I don't think it is possible to determine an objective moral position.

Let me take an example where I am pretty sure that your culture and mine have a different perspective. If a burglar enters a house in the UK and is shot dead, the householder is charged with murder. The householder is allowed to protect their property, and themselves, but if the burglar does not threaten them and makes to leave, you are not allowed to shoot him. You can use reasonable force to detain an intruder, but lethal force is unreasonable unless your own life is threatened. The principle point here is that life is more important than property, so you are not allowed to shoot a burglar running down the street with your TV set. I suspect that this attitude is not the prevailing one in the US. Which is the more moral under your paradigm? A law that forbids you from killing an intruder who is a threat to your property but not your person? Or a law that allows you to kill someone in defence of your property? This leads directly to the morality of capital punishment. There are some, you may be one, who think that capital punishment is morally justifiable. There are others, I am one, who think it is grossly immoral and unjustifiable under any circumstances

Thick as a brick is a dang good song in my opinion but music and morals aren't a fair comparison.
I think that the judgement of what makes good music and the judgement of what is morally good are analogous, in that they are personal judgements made using elements from a person's experience and character.
Good. Let's see if we can accomplish that task.
I think so. There is a lot more to discuss. This post does not touch upon sexual morality (how does that fit your paradigm?) freedom of speech, conflict of interests, let alone any of the classic moral dilemmas that philosophers bandy about such as the trolley problem. The mere fact that there is do much room for debate around morality is to my mind a very clear indication that it is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I hope you see this before you go but it's a small addition to my previous comments for your future consideration.

This ideas of taking what isnt yours I'd like to add to. Life is the best example. My life was given to me but it wasn't given to me by the govt or society. That life is mine and no one is entitled to it without my consent or permission. That's why the declaration of independence states that govts derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.
I don't have much to argue with here. I note that you use the word JUST rather than MORAL, the former having relation to legality. I also note that your life is not given you by the state. Can the state morally take it from you?
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
I don't have much to argue with here. I note that you use the word JUST rather than MORAL, the former having relation to legality. I also note that your life is not given you by the state. Can the state morally take it from you?
I apologize for interjecting but I've read these posts with great interest so I hope I could offer something. That poster made reference to the Declaration of Independence and the word JUST is used there and I think you are right that it relates to legality but the source is morally related. I think it would be immoral AND unjust for any government to exercise power over it's people without their consent but that's what the founders of America believed was happening with King George and Parliament. So if a government behaves immorally by being tyrnanical then it is a just cause to separate from it. That's important because if it's not a just cause then the one seeking separation is as bad as the tyrant because they would be behaving immorally.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I apologize for interjecting but I've read these posts with great interest so I hope I could offer something. That poster made reference to the Declaration of Independence and the word JUST is used there and I think you are right that it relates to legality but the source is morally related. I think it would be immoral AND unjust for any government to exercise power over it's people without their consent but that's what the founders of America believed was happening with King George and Parliament. So if a government behaves immorally by being tyrnanical then it is a just cause to separate from it. That's important because if it's not a just cause then the one seeking separation is as bad as the tyrant because they would be behaving immorally.
I am content with this. Clearly, the founding of your nation is very important to you and the associated documents are venerated. There may be a debate worth having on another occasion about just how much tyranny was being exercised and by whom. I don't know enough about the period to challenge the view of history that you have. I do know that poor George 3rd is much maligned though as he was seen in the UK as kind and gentle, a little dim, and frequently suffering from severe mental illness.

Don't you think that linking an objective and absolute moral standard, to apply wherever and whenever human beings interact, to the Declaration of Independence, is a little, well, parochial? It is said that history is written by the Victor's. It seems a bit rich for them to write the morality as well.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
OK, that is much clearer. I understand your point of view now. My answer is that l agree with you. I just don't think that this makes morality objective. What you described here is the aspect of morality that I would ascribe to our common human heritage. We are a social species and as such we have developed certain traits which help us cooperate with one another, at least within our own social group. As in all other types of trait, there are variations. Some people are very much more into cooperating with others than average, dome much less so. Some are much more jealous of their personal property, others much more ready to kill or injure other people. As such I don't think it is possible to determine an objective moral position.

Let me take an example where I am pretty sure that your culture and mine have a different perspective. If a burglar enters a house in the UK and is shot dead, the householder is charged with murder. The householder is allowed to protect their property, and themselves, but if the burglar does not threaten them and makes to leave, you are not allowed to shoot him. You can use reasonable force to detain an intruder, but lethal force is unreasonable unless your own life is threatened. The principle point here is that life is more important than property, so you are not allowed to shoot a burglar running down the street with your TV set. I suspect that this attitude is not the prevailing one in the US. Which is the more moral under your paradigm? A law that forbids you from killing an intruder who is a threat to your property but not your person? Or a law that allows you to kill someone in defence of your property? This leads directly to the morality of capital punishment. There are some, you may be one, who think that capital punishment is morally justifiable. There are others, I am one, who think it is grossly immoral and unjustifiable under any circumstances

I think that the judgement of what makes good music and the judgement of what is morally good are analogous, in that they are personal judgements made using elements from a person's experience and character.
I think so. There is a lot more to discuss. This post does not touch upon sexual morality (how does that fit your paradigm?) freedom of speech, conflict of interests, let alone any of the classic moral dilemmas that philosophers bandy about such as the trolley problem. The mere fact that there is do much room for debate around morality is to my mind a very clear indication that it is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute.
This is a great post. Thank you. You makes some very good points that could be talked about for a very long time.

If I could add I don't think the social cooperation idea discredits the argument that morals are objective. I think its clear that even thieves don't want their stuff stolen so that makes a sting case for objective morals in my mind.

Just for the record I agree that capital punishment is immoral.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
I am content with this. Clearly, the founding of your nation is very important to you and the associated documents are venerated. There may be a debate worth having on another occasion about just how much tyranny was being exercised and by whom. I don't know enough about the period to challenge the view of history that you have. I do know that poor George 3rd is much maligned though as he was seen in the UK as kind and gentle, a little dim, and frequently suffering from severe mental illness.

Don't you think that linking an objective and absolute moral standard, to apply wherever and whenever human beings interact, to the Declaration of Independence, is a little, well, parochial? It is said that history is written by the Victor's. It seems a bit rich for them to write the morality as well.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? I might suggest it. The founders laid out their grievances with the King and I think they numbered around 25 and 26 or so. I don't remember. Sorry.

As to the amount of tyranny and by whom it was exercised, i thinks it's clear it wasnt the colonies.

The Declaration of Independence was not written by the victors. It was written by people who believed their grievances went unaddressed and so they took action at great risk to their fortune and lives. And no I don't think it's parochial to refer to the Declaration of Independence because I believe the things written there are true for all people everywhere and we would do well to live more closley to the principles laid out within it.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? I might suggest it. The founders laid out their grievances with the King and I think they numbered around 25 and 26 or so. I don't remember. Sorry.

As to the amount of tyranny and by whom it was exercised, i thinks it's clear it wasnt the colonies.

The Declaration of Independence was not written by the victors. It was written by people who believed their grievances went unaddressed and so they took action at great risk to their fortune and lives. And no I don't think it's parochial to refer to the Declaration of Independence because I believe the things written there are true for all people everywhere and we would do well to live more closley to the principles laid out within it.
OK, that's fair enough. I think that the D of I is a document much more rooted in time and place than you acknowledge. I would be very loath to nail my moral standard to any document written 250 years ago, by wealthy, privileged men of their time. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a better such document in my view, perhaps because it is more up to date and more inclusive. It is dismissed frequently here, but perhaps that was by people who are being parochial.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
OK, that's fair enough. I think that the D of I is a document much more rooted in time and place than you acknowledge. I would be very loath to nail my moral standard to any document written 250 years ago, by wealthy, privileged men of their time. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a better such document in my view, perhaps because it is more up to date and more inclusive. It is dismissed frequently here, but perhaps that was by people who are being parochial.
Well I'd prefer to hear your thoughts after you've read it than before but by my reading of it there isn't anything about it that loses something over time. Was that document flawlessly played out across the centuries? Absolutely not but the principles it espouses are timeless. I'd suggest that a thousand years from now it will still be true that the last thing we should want as a civilization is to believe other people give us out rights.
 
Top